And I would imagine it's the same as the common european culture which as you see has it's own wikipedia page with definition, obviously it's a thing.

Afropunk festival is cool. It brings together Black cultures from all over to celebrate music. Unfortunately, there are many within the Black community who convinced themselves that they have some authority, to dictate to Black Americans, how they should define themselves and their cultures, as if we were all raised under the same roof, culture, religious beliefs, live the same lifestyle and have the same interests. Those are people with ignorant mindsets, who project prejudice ideology and limitations among specific groups. Don't fall for their bs. [Edited 10/11/17 19:42pm]

Like who? Who are these Black Americans who are convinced they have some authority to dictateto other Black Americans how they should define themselves and their cultures? For, if you're spea-king about my work in the Kemet thread, I would ask that you provide proof of me ever saying any-thing remotely like what you suggest. If you're not referring to my posts in that thread, then I'd liketo know who are these Black Americans doing what you say they are?

Cool. We agree. I brought up the LGBT community because some people oppose Pan Africanism and then will turn around and support the concept of LGBT self determination and quest for equality and justice.

One of the trends in society is we looked for sameness and started to celebrate it instead of celebrating our differences. Let us celebrate our differences!! Ok we are. Long live different looks, styles, cultures. I believe this AfroPunk style mixed with SteamPunk would be cool.

It probably came out of colonialism of the European persuasion. But, that's probably not entirely fair to Europe since I suspect appropriation is secondary to human nature.

Sorry to be so blunt. That's a bunch of BS.There is no such thing as "appropriation" of culture. It's just a matter of the human condition finding something interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Using "terms" to try and make it out to be more than it is is buffoonery and pretentiousness of the highest order.

Using "terms" to try and articulate phenomenons like Rachel Dolezal is not a "bunch of BS" for it'shuman nature to use words in order to explain how we interpret reality and the vestiges of colonial-ism. Depending upon your definition of it, we culturally appropriate all the time when we harmlessly eat at Taco Bell or observe and participate in Saint Patrick's Day without being Irish; or we do it harmfully in cases like the woman I mentioned above.

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

Quoted below is a great article, written by Tyree Boyd-Pates, which offers kind of a counter to my argument in this thread and in the Kemet thread:

On Daishikis and Face Paint: Decolonizing the African Culture Line

"Recently, a post written by writer Zipporah Gene posed the question, “Can Black people culturally appropriate one another? The piece accused African Americans of committing cultural appropriation in the same way white people do. Needless to say, her piece has caused quite the stir on my Facebook timeline. Though well intentioned, she missed the mark tremendously. By asserting that Black people are guilty of the same appropriation that whites are, the author failed to factor in the forced dislocation of an entire population of African people and dismissed their attempts at reconfiguring any semblance of African identity, which brings me to my thesis:When native African people restrict the cultural involvement of others based on their Diasporic location, they implicitly perpetuate the same colonialism that separated Africans from Africa.

Cultural appropriation is defined as the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of a different culture as a largely negative phenomenon. In Gene’s piece, she states that Black Americans, because of their misuse of African fashion and tribal markings, are responsible for the same type of cultural appropriation that white people are. Though well-meaning, she has a very eurocentric way of looking at things, including her own people. However, this isn’t unique to her. Quite honestly, it’s a problem that many people across the diaspora have when attempting to make cultural distinctions among themselves.

The reason this piece garnered so much support is simple — colonialism. Attempting to define someone else’s Africanness by where they fall on the globe is a direct byproduct of the colonialism that removed Black people from Africa in the first place. It is deeply misguided and disrespectful to disqualify non-native Africans from partaking in African customs and practices solely because of their dislocation from the continent. Such narrow and exclusionary definitions — cultural and otherwise — reinforce the colonial separation people across the Diaspora are still grappling with today.

This line of reasoning shames non-native Africans for a problem that they did not start. Black Americans, Afro-Brazilians, West Indians, and others are not responsible for their dislocation from the Motherland. Need we be reminded that during the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, approximately 11,863,000 Africans were shipped across the Atlantic, with a death rate during the Middle Passage reducing this number by 10-20 percent. As a result between 9.6 and 10.8 million Africans arrived in the Americas.

Do these facts make those who traveled that tumultuous middle passage and their ancestors less African? Of course not! Black people have just as much stake in the continent as native Africans do. This includes access to traditional African religions, customs and rituals, and most certainly includes the right to wear a dashiki.

Our relationship to African practices directly correlates to how we identify with the continent itself, both ideologically and culturally. Many Africans — both on and off the continent — tend to identify more with their specific region than with the continent as a whole. As a result, they define their differences based on the territorial demarcations that they have known all their lives. However, unbeknownst to them, most of these demarcations are colonial in nature and were imposed on them by white powers.

When we use these same distinctions to isolate one Black culture from the next, we are reinforcing the white supremacy that begat it. This becomes clear when engaging in conversations regardingintracultural appropriation.

To be clear, appropriation is a viable concern and it is problematic when we don’t take time to educate one another on the the customs we are choosing to adopt. In the states, Black people, like white people, benefit from American privilege. As we all know, some Black Americans use their privilege to disregard and lump the diversity of Africa into stereotypical slogans and catchphrases. Some utilize this same privilege even more by not educating themselves on their own cultures and customs. And although this is indicative of a certain kind of privilege, it isn’t appropriation.

When Black Americans and others within the Diaspora employ aspects of African culture, they do so in an attempt to associate themselves with their long lost homeland. Some do this more consciously than others, but regardless of the surface-level motivation, it is all rooted in a genuine desire to connect with a stolen legacy.

Conversely, first generation Africans in America have the privilege of identification and access to customs that Black Americans and others across the Diaspora do not due to their native affiliations. When this association to Africa is leveraged to exclude other Africans (native or not), this claim to relative fame only promotes a false sense of entitlement to Africa that is based on location instead of ancestry.

Recognizing the dislocation of nearly 169 million African people from the continent, conversations like these must be had. While there may indeed be a misuse of African customs and symbols by Black Americans in the U.S., this should not be classified as appropriation. If anything, it highlights our relentless attempt to create an identity of Africanness here in the states, despite the dislocation we’ve had imposed on us. The sooner our native Africans brothers and sisters see that, the better."

It is well argued, but I still disagree with it. This is because when people like me ask that BlackAmericans be more thoughtful about discovering their genetic roots and the concretization of thatdiscovery instead of viewing Africa as a whole monolithically, we are not implicitly "perpetuat{ing} the same colonialism that separated Africans from Africa." So, when Boyd-Pates argues that we should think about the "factor{s} in the forced dislocation of an entire population of African people"instead of dismissing "attempts at reconfiguring any semblance of African identity", that reconfigura-tion should not be arbitrarily drawn based upon sharing skin color and some genes for it could beargued that most humans on the planet share the same African ancestry. In other words, contraryto what Boyd-Pates suggest, just "any semblance" will not do; instead, I argue that the semblanceshould be specific without grouping 54 countries and 3000 ethnicities into one single group simplybecause they are all brown and dark skinned living on the same continent which has never beenlargely unified under one culture; one tongue; one religious system; one identity. I also disagreewith his claim that "Black people have just as much stake in the continent as native Africans do" forthe same reasons: we are not Africans in culture and Africa is not asking us for our participation. ForBlack Americans to insert ourselves into the "African question" without being asked or without ap-plying critical thinking to that insertion by paying attention to the complexities at play here (history,sociology, economics, politics, colonialism, anthropology, etc.) is so presumptuous and he would dowell to be more descriptive about what that involvement looks like. With all that being said, I am happy to spend more time thinking about Boyd-Pates' argument and any other in this thread that is equally articulate and cogent.

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

It probably came out of colonialism of the European persuasion. But, that's probably not entirely fair to Europe since I suspect appropriation is secondary to human nature.

Sorry to be so blunt. That's a bunch of BS.There is no such thing as "appropriation" of culture. It's just a matter of the human condition finding something interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Using "terms" to try and make it out to be more than it is is buffoonery and pretentiousness of the highest order.

Using "terms" to try and articulate phenomenons like Rachel Dolezal is not a "bunch of BS" for it'shuman nature to use words in order to explain how we interpret reality and the vestiges of colonial-ism. Depending upon your definition of it, we culturally appropriate all the time when we harmlessly eat at Taco Bell or observe and participate in Saint Patrick's Day without being Irish; or we do it harmfully in cases like the woman I mentioned above.

Using "terms" to try and articulate phenomenons like Rachel Dolezal is not a "bunch of BS" for it'shuman nature to use words in order to explain how we interpret reality and the vestiges of colonial-ism. Depending upon your definition of it, we culturally appropriate all the time when we harmlessly eat at Taco Bell or observe and participate in Saint Patrick's Day without being Irish; or we do it harmfully in cases like the woman I mentioned above.

Silly made up terms.

Or, ignorant people unaware of reality and the terms used to describe it.

This is kind of my answer to why are Black Americas always trying to claim ancient Egypt when they are predominently of West African heritage. Theyaren't if one is truly paying attention.
Theyare embracing the whole, and projecting the positive as all young people do.

👆
paraphrasing the above:
this is kind of an answer to why are white americans are always trying to hold on to a 17th century white supremacist american colonialism mindset when they are predominantly of european heritage. (as well as being land thieves, and genocidal terrorist of the indigenous peoples in america). They are if one is truly paying attention.
They are still embracing the who they are historically as a whole, and they are still
projecting the lies as positive to all delusional young white people.
👻
hopefully the paraphrased wordage can be understood in that the they is the supreme insult in classifying anyone as one whole as far as mindsets.
not one of us (black, white, indigenous, asian or etc) are or should be classified as "they."we are all individuals whether or not in agreement to certain cultural philosophies, mindsets or beliefs.
finally:
p.s. all whites do not think like the kkk or donald drunpf-trump, or i'd be classifying all of them "they."nome of us is anyone's racial "THEY."[Edited 10/12/17 10:56am]

Using "terms" to try and articulate phenomenons like Rachel Dolezal is not a "bunch of BS" for it'shuman nature to use words in order to explain how we interpret reality and the vestiges of colonial-ism. Depending upon your definition of it, we culturally appropriate all the time when we harmlessly eat at Taco Bell or observe and participate in Saint Patrick's Day without being Irish; or we do it harmfully in cases like the woman I mentioned above.

Silly made up terms.

Or, ignorant people unaware of reality and the terms used to describe it.

African Unity Day, also known as Africa day is celebrated annually on 25 May. It commemorates the founding of the Organisation of African Unity on this day in 1963.

It is a statutory public holiday in Ghana. It is also a public holiday in The Gambia, Mali, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

http://www.officeholidays.com/countries/africa/african_unity_day.php

the African Union is pursuing a path of closer integration through the launch of a common passport that will grant visa-free access to all 54 member states.

The first of the electronic passports were unveiled at theAU summit in Kigali, Rwanda, where they were issued to heads of state and senior officials. The Union aims to distribute them to all African citizens by 2020.

I can understand what Zipporah means within her article, but definitely not that title. Her opening word usage was divisive and did nothing to progress the conversation she was trying to point out. What she is talking about is happening to every single culture under the sun from within, not just Africans. She dumbly used the most incorrect word available, which generated a divisive attitude on her part by over generalizing a group of people using a photo as the basis of her judgement. The correct word would have been "commercialization".

Regardless of the spirit of which this thread was created in, yes, Black Americans should definitely stop appropriating "African Culture" especially since Africa is not a country, but a continent currently constituted of 54 countries with about 3000 discrete ethnicities which ultimately means terms like "African Culture", often used by some ignorant folks who think "Africa" is a national and culturalmonolith, really does not mean anything. As the entire history of the continent of African has shownus, a shared genetic code and complexion does not automatically guarantee cultural or human solidarity.

please be aware to use : space then the http if u expect ur link to be viewed. thx I added the corrected configuration within ur above quote [Edited 10/12/17 11:30am]

What's weird when I click the link in your response I get an error message but when I click the link in my original post the pdf comes right up. Are you getting an error message from the link in my post? Is that the issue? I can try something else, granted I'm not tech savvy so I'm not making any promises.